On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:47:00 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > Well, we're mainly looking for bugfixes this last in the cycle.
> > "[PATCH v3 03/14] mm, hugetlb: protect region tracking via newly
> > introduced resv_map lock" fixes a bug, but I'd assumed that it depended
> > on earlier patches.
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:49 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:08 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > >
> > > > > If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:49 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:08 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:47:00 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
Well, we're mainly looking for bugfixes this last in the cycle.
[PATCH v3 03/14] mm, hugetlb: protect region tracking via newly
introduced resv_map lock fixes a bug, but I'd assumed that it depended
on earlier
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:49 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:08 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > > > If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7 patches into mainline
> > > > before your mutex approach. There are
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:08 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > > If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7 patches into mainline
> > > before your mutex approach. There are some of clean-up patches and, IMO,
> > > it makes the code more readable
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7 patches into mainline
> > before your mutex approach. There are some of clean-up patches and, IMO,
> > it makes the code more readable and maintainable, so it is worth to merge
> > separately.
>
> Fine
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7 patches into mainline
before your mutex approach. There are some of clean-up patches and, IMO,
it makes the code more readable and maintainable, so it is worth to merge
separately.
Fine by me.
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:08 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7 patches into mainline
before your mutex approach. There are some of clean-up patches and, IMO,
it makes the code more readable and
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:49 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:08 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7 patches into mainline
before your mutex approach. There are
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 10:57 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:19:05AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:19 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > Hi Joonsoo,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry about
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:19:05AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:19 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > Hi Joonsoo,
> > >
> > > Sorry about the delay...
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900,
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:19 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > Hi Joonsoo,
> >
> > Sorry about the delay...
> >
> > On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:19 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Hi Joonsoo,
Sorry about the delay...
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri,
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:19:05AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:19 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Hi Joonsoo,
Sorry about the delay...
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 10:57 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:19:05AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:19 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Hi Joonsoo,
Sorry about the delay...
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> Sorry about the delay...
>
> On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Hi Joonsoo,
Sorry about the delay...
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Hi Joonsoo,
Sorry about the delay...
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On
Hi Joonsoo,
Sorry about the delay...
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19,
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If parallel fault occur, we
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com
wrote:
If parallel fault
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > > because many threads dequeue a
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
> > This makes reserved pool
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
This makes
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com
wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
because many threads dequeue
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:15:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:58:10 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If parallel fault occur,
Hello, Davidlohr.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:31:21PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 17:02 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > > because many
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 17:02 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
> > This makes reserved pool shortage
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:58:10 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > > because many threads dequeue a
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
> > This makes reserved pool
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
> This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause
> faulting thread who can
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
This makes
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:58:10 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com
wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 17:02 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
This makes reserved
Hello, Davidlohr.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:31:21PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 17:02 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com
wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:15:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:58:10 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com
wrote:
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause
faulting thread who can get hugepages to get a SIGBUS signal.
To solve this problem, we
If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause
faulting thread who can get hugepages to get a SIGBUS signal.
To solve this problem, we
42 matches
Mail list logo
